Last week, the Virginia Supreme Court, which has been considered a left-leaning court, surprised everyone, including the Democrats, by issuing a correct ruling: The rushed ballot initiative to gerrymander Virginia’s Republicans into oblivion didn’t pass muster, invalidating the election.
Democrats responded with their usual “burn it all down” rhetoric. CNN’s Abby Phillip, in full “emo kid” mode, announced that America is now “in the depths of hell,” and that all black voters have been disenfranchised. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who ought to have been statesmanlike, fanned the flames, attacking the Virginia Supreme Court and announcing that the United States Supreme Court is a Jim Crow institution.
Jeffries also promised that Democrats “are exploring all options to overturn this shocking decision.” With that in mind, Quinn Yeargain, a law professor at Michigan State University College of Law, has a plan. It’s not a good plan—indeed, it’s an attack on America’s core premise of stable institutions and impartial courts—but it’s a plan.
In an essay at The Downballot, a progressive (i.e., hard leftist) outlet, Yeargain suggests that the Virginia legislature change the state Supreme Court’s retirement age, so that, effective immediately, everyone over 53 must retire—an upper age limit that would put all of the current judges out of a job:
Article VI, Section 9, of the Virginia Constitution gives the legislature unlimited authority to set the retirement age for judges. It specifies, “The General Assembly may also provide for the mandatory retirement of justices and judges after they reach a prescribed age, beyond which they shall not serve, regardless of the term to which elected or appointed.”
Currently, he writes, the retirement age is 73, but there’s no reason to keep it there. Using the budget appropriations process, Democrats in the state legislature can change that age limit instantly:
Virginia lawmakers can simply lower theirs. Make it 54 for Supreme Court justices—the age of the youngest justice, Stephen McCullough, who joined the majority opinion—and make it take effect immediately.
Then, after the bill is approved, the entire court would retire. A new court would then be appointed that could re-hear the case and have the opportunity to issue a different ruling.
Yeargain says that doing this is a sure way “to see the will of the voters is respected.” But of course, not respecting the voters’ will was the whole problem with the original ballot measure. By illegally using biased “push poll language,” it manipulated and misled voters. A fraudulently obtained outcome does not represent “the will of the voters,” and the Virginia court ruled accordingly.
Yeargain’s proposal should have instantly been dismissed as a crackpot idea, for it’s an unconstitutional strong-arm tactic that uses clever tricks to upset the entire political order. Instead, at a meeting of those Virginia Democrats sitting in the House of Representatives, as well as Hakeem Jeffries, the idea was discussed as a possible option. Per the New York Times,
Yeargain says that doing this is a sure way “to see the will of the voters is respected.” But of course, not respecting the voters’ will was the whole problem with the original ballot measure. By illegally using biased “push poll language,” it manipulated and misled voters. A fraudulently obtained outcome does not represent “the will of the voters,” and the Virginia court ruled accordingly.
Yeargain’s proposal should have instantly been dismissed as a crackpot idea, for it’s an unconstitutional strong-arm tactic that uses clever tricks to upset the entire political order. Instead, at a meeting of those Virginia Democrats sitting in the House of Representatives, as well as Hakeem Jeffries, the idea was discussed as a possible option. Per the New York Times,
The Constitution imposes a duty under Art. IV § 4, to ensure that states maintain a Republican form of government. Trump would have an obligation to occupy the state with federal troops and reform Virginia’s government.
Exactly, the Virginia Democrats aren’t using cannons, but erasing its entire Supreme Court and replacing it with a political rubber stamp would have the same effect as the volley fired at Fort Sumter in 1861. They’re contemplating a raw power play and an act of rebellion. At the very least, it would merit an emergency petition to the United States Supreme Court.
Right now, Washington, Jefferson, and (especially) Madison must be rolling in their graves at the thought that representatives from their state could even be thinking along these despotic lines.
SUPPORT AMERICAN THINKER
Now more than ever, the ability to speak our minds is crucial to the republic we cherish. If what you see on American Thinker resonates with you, please consider supporting our work with a donation of as much or as little as you can give. Every dollar contributed helps us pay our staff and keep our ideas heard and our voices strong. Thank you.https://givebutter.com/embed/c/WhA2EO?goalBar=false&gba_gb.element.id=gkx27p
THE ARTFUL DILETTANTE 